Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_775_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Introduction
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •1.5 Venous Anatomy
- •1.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •2.1 Introduction
- •2.1.1.1 IPDA
- •1.1 Introduction
- •1.2 Arterial Anatomy
- •1.3 Portal Venous Anatomy
- •1.4 Biliary Anatomy
- •2.1.1.4 Dorsal Pancreatic Artery (DPA)
- •2.3 Surgical Techniques
- •2.4 Discussion
- •2.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •3.1 Introduction
- •3.2 Intrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.2.4 Accessory Biliary Ducts
- •3.3 Extrahepatic Biliary Tract
- •3.3.2 Retroduodenopancreatic Portion
- •3.3.3 Intramural Portion
- •3.5 Accessory Biliary Tract
- •3.5.2 Vascularization
- •References
- •4.1 Introduction
- •4.2 Posthepatectomy Liver Failure (PHLF)
- •4.3.1 Portal Hypertension
- •4.3.3 Blood Chemistry Tests
- •4.3.4 Indocyanine Green (ICG) Clearance Test
- •4.4 M2BPGi
- •4.5 Scintigraphy
- •4.7 Measuring FLR Function
- •4.8 Conclusions
- •References
- •5.1.1 Hemangioma
- •5.1.2 Focal Nodular Hyperplasia
- •5.1.3 Simple Hepatic Cyst
- •5.1.4 Hepatic Adenoma
- •5.2.1 Hepatocellular Carcinoma
- •5.2.2 Metastatic Disease
- •5.2.3 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.2.4 Hepatic Angiosarcoma
- •5.3.1 Acute Calculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.2 Chronic Cholecystitis
- •5.3.3 Acalculous Cholecystitis
- •5.3.4 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •5.3.5 Choledocolithiasis
- •5.3.7 Choledochal Cysts
- •5.3.8 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis
- •5.3.9 Benign Biliary Stricture
- •5.4.1 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •5.4.2 Gall Bladder Cancer
- •5.5.1 Acute Pancreatitis
- •5.5.2 Chronic Pancreatitis
- •5.5.3 Pancreas Neuroendocrine Tumors
- •5.5.4 Pancreas Cystic Neoplasms
- •5.5.4.1 Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.2 Mucinous Cystic Neoplasm
- •5.5.4.3 Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm
- •5.6.1 Pancreas Adenocarcinoma
- •References
- •6.2.1 Gallbladder
- •6.3.1 Gallbladder Dysfunction
- •6.3.3 Pancreaticobiliary Maljunction
- •6.4.2 Enterohepatic Circulation
- •6.4.3 Bile Acids
- •References
- •7.1 Introduction
- •BilINs
- •IPNBs
- •7.1.1.2 Imaging Findings
- •BilINs
- •IPNB
- •7.1.2.1 Gross
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •Controversial Cases: BilIN or IPNB
- •7.1.2.2 Histologies
- •BilINs
- •IPNB.
- •8.4 Gallbladder Carcinoma
- •8.4.1 Gross Features
- •8.4.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.4.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •BilIN
- •IPNB
- •7.1.4.1 BilIN
- •7.1.4.2 IPNB
- •7.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •8.1 Introduction
- •8.2 Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.2.1 Gross Features
- •8.2.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.2.3 Molecular Features
- •8.3 Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
- •8.3.1 Gross Features
- •8.3.2 Microscopic Features
- •8.3.3 Molecular Features
- •References
- •10.1.2 Epidemiology
- •10.1.3 Etiology
- •10.1.4 Clinical Features
- •10.1.5 Radiology
- •10.1.6 Pathology
- •10.1.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.1.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.1.6.4 Grading
- •10.1.6.6 Molecular Pathology
- •10.2.2 Epidemiology
- •10.2.3 Etiology
- •10.2.4 Clinical Features
- •10.2.5 Radiology
- •10.2.6 Pathology
- •10.2.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.2 Microscopic Appearance
- •10.2.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.2.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •10.3.2 Epidemiology
- •10.3.3 Etiology
- •10.3.4 Clinical Features
- •10.3.5 Radiology
- •10.3.6 Pathology
- •10.3.6.1 Macroscopic Appearance
- •10.3.6.3 Immunohistochemistry
- •10.3.6.5 Molecular Pathology
- •References
- •11: Mucinous Cystic Neoplasms
- •11.1 Introduction
- •11.2 Clinical Aspects
- •11.3 Pathological Findings
- •11.3.1 Macroscopical Features
- •11.3.2 Histological Features
- •11.4 Molecular Abnormalities
- •References
- •12.1 Introduction
- •12.1.1 General Features
- •12.1.2 Diagnostic Features
- •12.1.3 Clinical Implications
- •12.1.4 Desmoplastic Stroma
- •12.1.5 Venous Invasion
- •12.1.6 Variants
- •12.2 Conclusions
- •References
- •13.2.1 Benign Liver Tumors
- •13.2.2 Malignant Liver Tumors
- •13.2.3.1 Liver Abscess
- •13.4.1 Biliary Tree Tumors
- •13.5.1 Pancreatic Tumors
- •References
- •14.1 MRE Technique
- •14.2 MRE Performance
- •14.4 Technical Limitations
- •14.5 Summary
- •References
- •15.1 Introduction
- •15.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •17.1 Intraoperative Cholangiography
- •17.2 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •17.2.1 Anatomy
- •17.2.2 Diagnosis
- •17.2.3 Resection Guidance
- •17.2.3.2 Resection Guidance
- •17.3 Intraoperative Fluorescence Imaging
- •17.4 Navigation Assisted Liver Resection
- •References
- •18.1 Introduction
- •18.2 Photon Therapy
- •18.3 Charged Particles Therapy
- •18.4 MRI Guided Therapy
- •18.5 Combination Strategies Using Cytotoxics
- •18.6 Radioimmunotherapy
- •18.8 Summary
- •References
- •19.1 Introduction
- •19.2 Systemic Chemotherapy
- •19.2.1 Adjuvant Therapy
- •19.2.2 First-Line Therapy
- •19.2.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •19.3 Targeted Therapy
- •19.4 Immunotherapy
- •19.5 Precision Medicine
- •References
- •20.1 Introduction
- •20.2.1 Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.2 Adjuvant Chemotherapy
- •20.2.3 Palliative Chemotherapy
- •20.3 Immunotherapy
- •20.4 Tumor Microenvironment
- •20.5 Summary
- •References
- •21.1 Background
- •21.5 Combination Strategies
- •21.7 Future Perspectives
- •References
- •22.1 FGFR Alterations
- •22.2 IDH Mutations
- •22.3 BRAF Alterations
- •22.7 Conclusions
- •References
- •23.1 Introduction
- •23.2 Adjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.3 Neoadjuvant Systemic Therapy
- •23.4.3 Second-Line Therapy
- •23.4.4 Targeted Therapy
- •References
- •24.1 Introduction
- •24.4 The Various Stents Available
- •24.8 Hilar Strictures (Resectable Cases)
- •24.9 Hilar Stricture: Palliative Cases
- •24.11 Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage
- •24.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •25.1 Introduction
- •25.3 EUS-TD Technique
- •25.4 EN Technique
- •25.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •26.1 Background
- •26.2 Short History
- •26.4.6 Personalized Cancer Treatment
- •References
- •27.1 Introduction
- •27.3.1 Pre-Admission Optimization
- •27.3.3 Carbohydrate Loading
- •27.3.6 Early Feeding
- •27.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •28.1 Introduction
- •28.5 Conclusion
- •References
- •29.6 Conclusion
- •References
- •30.1 Introduction
- •30.3 Surgical Indication
- •30.4 Surgical Technique
- •30.4.1 Exposure
- •30.4.4 Parenchymal Transection
- •30.5 Clinical Advantages
- •30.5.1 Technical Advantages
- •30.5.2 Prognostic Advantages
- •30.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •31.1 Introduction
- •31.2 Multiple Bilobar CLM
- •31.2.1 Intraoperative Ultrasound
- •31.2.2 Tumor-vessel Detachment
- •31.2.3 Communicating Veins
- •31.3 New Procedures
- •31.3.1.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.2 Upper Trasversal Hepatectomy (UTH))
- •31.3.2.1 Mini-Upper Transversal Hepatectomy
- •31.3.2.2 Right Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [33]
- •31.3.2.3 Left Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24]
- •31.3.2.4 Total Upper Transversal Hepatectomy [24, 34]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.3 Mini-mesohepatectomy (MMH) [35, 36]
- •31.3.3.1 Eligibility Criteria
- •31.3.4 Liver Tunnel [37, 38]
- •Eligibility Criteria
- •31.4 Discussion
- •31.5 Concerns & Future Directions
- •31.6 Conclusions
- •References
- •32.1 Introduction
- •References
- •33.1 Introduction
- •33.6 Segmentectomy, Cone Unit Resection
- •33.7 Surgical Outcomes
- •References
- •34.1 Introduction
- •34.6 Laparoscopic Parenchymal Sparing Anatomical Hepatectomy (Lap-PSAH)
- •34.7 Surgical Procedures at Ageo Central General Hospital (ACGH)
- •34.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •35.5 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy V (S5)
- •35.6 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VI (S6)
- •35.7 Laparoscopic Segmentectomy VII (S7)
- •References
- •36: Modified ALPPS Procedure
- •36.1 Introduction
- •36.2 Discussion
- •36.2.1 Parenchymal Transection
- •36.2.2 Hepatoduodenal Ligament Dissection
- •36.2.4.1 Partial ALPPS
- •36.2.4.2 Hybrid ALPPS
- •36.2.4.3 Mini-ALPPS/ALPTIPS
- •36.2.4.5 Tourniquet ALPPS
- •36.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •37.1 Introduction
- •37.3 Right-Posterior Approach
- •37.4 Right-Uncinate Approach
- •37.5 Mesenteric Approach
- •37.6 Left-Posterior Approach
- •37.7 Anterior Approach
- •37.8 Mesopancreatic Resection
- •37.10 Summary
- •References
- •38: Organ- and Parenchyma-sparing Pancreatic Surgery
- •38.1 Introduction
- •38.2 Organ-Sparing Techniques
- •38.2.1 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3 Parenchyma-Sparing Techniques
- •38.3.2 Dorsal Pancreatectomy
- •38.3.4 Middle-Preserving Pancreatectomy
- •38.4 Conclusion
- •References
- •39.1 Introduction
- •39.2.1 Laparotomy
- •39.2.2 Supramesocolic Approach
- •39.2.3 Inframesocolic Approach
- •39.3 Mesenteric Incision
- •39.9 Antithrombogenic PV Catheter Bypass
- •39.13 Discussion
- •References
- •40.1 Introduction
- •40.4 HA Reconstruction
- •40.4.1 Simple Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.2 Complicated Reconstruction Case
- •40.4.3 Concomitant Vein Resection
- •40.4.4 Management after HA Reconstruction
- •40.5 Conclusions
- •References
- •41.1 Introduction
- •41.3.1 Patients
- •41.3.2 Preoperative Treatments
- •41.3.5 Statistical Analyses
- •41.4 Results
- •41.5 Discussion
- •References
- •42.1 Introduction
- •42.1.1 Preoperative Planning
- •42.2 Surgical Technique
- •42.2.1 Basic Preliminary Maneuvers
- •42.3 Postoperative Management
- •42.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •43: Robotic Pancreaticoduodenectomy
- •43.1 Background
- •43.2 Robotic PD
- •43.3 Conclusion
- •References
- •44: Duodenum-Preserving Pancreatic Head Resection
- •References
- •45.1 Introduction
- •45.2 Surgical Technique
- •45.3 Discussion
- •References
- •46: Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •46.1 Introduction
- •46.2 Indications
- •46.4 Technique
- •46.4.1 Warshaw’s Technique
- •46.5 Postoperative Follow-Up
- •References
- •References
- •48.1 Introduction
- •48.10 Surgical Technique Preserving Left Gastric Artery
- •48.12 Conclusions
- •References
- •49: Robotic Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.1 Surgical Technique
- •49.1.3 Distal Splenopancreatectomy
- •49.1.4 Spleen-Preserving Distal Pancreatectomy
- •49.2 Results
- •49.3 Discussion
- •References
- •50: Total Pancreatectomy
- •50.1 Introduction
- •50.2 Indications
- •50.3 Surgical Procedure
- •50.4 Vascular Resection
- •50.5 Comment
- •References
- •References
- •52.1 Introduction
- •52.2.1 Non-Functional PNEN (NF-PNEN)
- •52.2.2 Functional PNEN
- •52.2.4 High-grade PNEN
- •52.4 Conclusions
- •References
- •53.1 Introduction
- •53.1.1 Fukuoka Guidelines 2012 (Revised 2017)
- •53.1.2 European Guidelines 2018 (EG18)
- •53.2 Discussion
- •References
- •54.1 Introduction
- •54.1.1 Developmental Mechanism
- •54.1.2 Designations
- •54.1.3 Incidence
- •54.1.4 Predictive Factors
- •54.1.5 Treatment
- •54.2 Conclusion
- •References
- •55: Benign Biliary Diseases
- •55.1 Introduction
- •55.2 Congenital Anomalies
- •55.2.1 Biliary Atresia
- •55.2.2 Choledochal Cyst
- •55.3 Diagnosis
- •55.4 Complications
- •55.5 Management
- •55.5.1 Gallstones
- •55.6 Pathogenesis
- •55.8 Complications
- •55.9 Bile Duct Stones
- •55.10 Management
- •55.11 Intrahepatic Stones
- •55.13.1 Benign Biliary Strictures (BBS)
- •55.14 Iatrogenic Biliary Injury
- •55.15 Mirizzi Syndrome (MS)
- •55.16 Liver Transplantation Related BBS
- •55.17 Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (PSC)
- •55.17.1 Biliary Dyskinesia
- •References
- •56.1 Introduction
- •56.2 Preoperative Evaluation
- •56.2.1 Preoperative Biliary Drainage
- •56.2.2 Portal Vein Embolization
- •56.3.2 Hilar No Touch “En-bloc” Technique
- •56.3.3 Vascular Resection
- •56.3.4 Margin Status
- •56.3.5 Lymph Node Dissection
- •56.3.6 Minimally Invasive Surgery
- •56.4 Short-term Results
- •56.5 Long-term Results
- •56.6 Conclusions
- •Bibliography
- •57.1 Introduction
- •57.2 Clinical Presentation
- •57.3 Serum Tumor Markers
- •57.4 Imaging
- •57.5 Treatment
- •57.6 Surgical Management
- •57.6.1 Liver Resection
- •57.11 Surgical Resection Procedure
- •57.13.2 Long-Term Outcomes
- •57.14 Recurrence
- •57.14.1 Liver Transplantation
- •References
- •58.1 Introduction
- •58.1.2 Surgical Techniques
- •58.1.4 Outcomes After HPD
- •58.1.5 Practical Management During Surgery
- •References
- •59: Hepato-biliary Injuries
- •59.1 Etiology
- •59.4 Diagnosis
- •59.4.1 Clinical Presentation
- •59.4.2 Imaging
- •References
- •60.1 Background
- •60.2 Diagnostics
- •60.3 Treatment
- •60.3.1 Nonoperative Management
- •60.3.2 Interventional Treatment
- •60.3.3 Surgery
- •References
- •61.1 Historical Overview
- •61.2.1.1 Acute Liver Failure (ALF)
- •61.2.1.2 Chronic Liver Failure
- •61.2.3 MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4 Other Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •61.2.4.1 Non-Standardized MELD Exceptions
- •References
- •62.3 Patient Assessment
- •62.4 Prognostic Factors
- •62.6 Extracorporeal Liver Support Systems
- •62.8 Conclusion
- •References
- •63.1 Introduction
- •63.2 Donation After Brain Death
- •63.3 Donors after Circulatory Death
- •63.4.1 Surgical Technique
- •63.4.1.1 Cross-clamping
- •63.4.2 Technical Variants
- •63.4.2.1 Split Liver Retrieval
- •63.4.2.2 En-bloc Liver-pancreas Retrieval
- •63.4.2.3 En-bloc Liver-bowel Retrieval
- •63.4.3 Back-table
- •63.4.3.1 Incidents: Accidents
- •References
- •64.1 Introduction
- •64.11 Conclusions
- •References
- •65: Living Donor Liver Transplantation
- •65.1 Introduction
- •65.2.1 Graft Size
- •65.2.2 Left Liver Graft
- •65.2.3 Right Liver Graft
- •65.2.4 Right Lateral Sector Graft
- •65.2.5 Dual Graft
- •65.2.6 ABO Blood Type Incompatible Graft
- •References

23 Systemic Therapies forPancreatic Cancer
199
treatments. Clinical studies investigating the benet of targeted therapies and immunotherapy strategies have resulted
in signicant benets in a small percentage of patients.
Ongoing studies on tumor biology and tumor microenvironment are promising for treatment options that will yield clinical benet in this cancer.
References
1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality
worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.
2018;68:394–424.
2. Ilic M, Ilic I. Epidemiology of pancreatic cancer. World J
Gastroenterol. 2016;22:9694–705.
3. Khorana AA, Mangu PB, Berlin J, etal. Potentially curable pancreatic cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice
guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:2324.
4. Ducreux M, Cuhna AS, Caramella C, etal. Cancer of the pancreas:
ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and
follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2015;26 Suppl 5:v56.
5. Neoptolemos JP, Dunn JA, Stocken DD, et al. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic cancer: a
randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2001;358:1576.
6. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Friess H, etal. A randomized trial of
chemoradiotherapy and chemotherapy after resection of pancreatic
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:1200.
7. Oettle H, Post S, Neuhaus P, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with
gemcitabine vs observation in patients undergoing curative-intent
resection of pancreatic cancer: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA. 2007;297:267.
8. Oettle H, Neuhaus P, Hochhaus A, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy
with gemcitabine and long-term outcomes among patients with
resected pancreatic cancer: the CONKO-001 randomized trial.
JAMA. 2013;310:1473.
9. Neoptolemos JP, Stocken DD, Bassi C, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy with uorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following
pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA.
2010;304:1073.
10. Neoptolemos JP, Palmer DH, Ghaneh P, etal. Comparison of adjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine with gemcitabine monotherapy
in patients with resected pancreatic cancer (ESPAC-4): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389:1011.
11. Jones RP, Psarelli EE, Jackson R, et al. Patterns of recurrence
after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a secondary
analysis of the ESPAC-4 randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial.
JAMA Surg. 2019;154:1038.
12. Conroy T, Hammel P, Hebbar M, et al. FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med.
2018;379:2395.
13. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical
practice guidelines in oncology. https://www.nccn.org/profession-
als/physician_gls. Accessed 12 Aug 2020.
14. Uesaka K, Boku N, Fukutomi A, etal. Adjuvant chemotherapy of
S-1 versus gemcitabine for resected pancreatic cancer: a phase 3,
open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial (JASPAC 01). Lancet.
2016;388:248–57.
15. Tempero MA, Reni M, Riess H, etal. APACT: phase III, multicenter, international, open-label, randomized trial of adjuvant
nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-P/G) vs gemcitabine (G)
for surgically resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol.
2019;37(15_suppl):4000.
16. Khorana AA, Mangu PB, Berlin J, etal. Potentially curable pancreatic cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice
guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:2541.
17. Ferrone CR, Marchegiani G, Hong TS, etal. Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for
locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Ann
Surg. 2015;261:12–7.
18. Mokdad AA, Minter RM, Zhu H, et al. Neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection versus upfront resection for resectable pancreatic cancer: a propensity score matched analysis. J Clin Oncol.
2017;35:515–22.
19. Shubert CR, Bergquist JR, Groeschl RT, et al. Overall survival
is increased among stage III pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients
receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to surgery rst
and adjuvant chemotherapy: an intention to treat analysis of the
National Cancer Database. Surgery. 2016;160:1080–96.
20. Murphy JE, Wo JY, Ryan DP, etal. Total Neoadjuvant therapy with
FOLFIRINOX followed by individualized chemoradiotherapy for
borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 clinical
trial [published correction appears in JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:1439].
JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:963–9.
21. Yamada S, Fujii T, Sugimoto H, et al. Aggressive surgery
for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: evaluation of
National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. Pancreas.
2013;42:1004–10.
22. Versteijne E, Suker M, Groothuis K, etal. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy versus immediate surgery for resectable and borderline
resectable pancreatic cancer: results of the Dutch randomized phase
III PREOPANC trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1763–73.
23. Reni M, Balzano G, Zanon S, etal. Safety and efcacy of preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PACT-15): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 trial.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:413–23.
24. Unno M, Motoi F, Matsuyama Y, et al. Randomized phase II/III
trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 versus
upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer (Prep-02/JSAP-
05). J Clin Oncol. 2019;37S:ASCO #189.
25. Sohal D, Duong MT, Ahmad SA, et al. SWOG S1505: results
of perioperative chemotherapy (peri-op CTx) with mFOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (Gem/nabP) for resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). J Clin Oncol.
2020;38S:ASCO #4504.
26. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med.
2011;364:1817–25.
27. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, etal. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med.
2013;369:1691–703.
28. Suker M, Beumer BR, Sadot E, et al. FOLFIRINOX for locally
advanced pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and patient-level
meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:801–10.
29. Kunzmann V, Algül H, Goekkurt E, et al. Conversion rate
inlocally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) after nab-paclitaxel/
gemcitabine- or FOLFIRINOX-based induction chemotherapy
(NEOLAP): nal results of a multicenter randomised phase II AIO
trial (abstract 671O). Data presented at the 2019 European Society
for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Congress, Barcelona, Spain;
September 27 through October 1, 2019. Abstract available online
at https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article/30/Supplement_5/
mdz247/5577841. Accessed 19 Aug 2020.
30. Burris HA 3rd, Moore MJ, Andersen J, etal. Improvements in survival and clinical benet with gemcitabine as rst-line therapy for
patients with advanced pancreas cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin
Oncol. 1997;15:2403–13.
31. Poplin E, Feng Y, Berlin J, etal. Phase III, randomized study of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin versus gemcitabine (xed-dose rate infu-

200
F. Dane and N. C. Demircan
sion) compared with gemcitabine (30-minute infusion) in patients
with pancreatic carcinoma E6201: a trial of the Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group [published correction appears in J Clin Oncol.
2009 Dec 1;27(34):5859]. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:3778–85.
32. Sohal DPS, Kennedy EB, Khorana A, etal. Metastatic pancreatic
cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol.
2018;36:2545–56.
33. Wong W, Rau AG, Safyan RA, etal. BRCA mutations in pancreas
cancer: spectrum, current management, challenges and future prospects. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;12:2731–42.
34. O'Reilly EM, Lee JW, Zalupski M, etal. Randomized, multicenter,
phase II trial of gemcitabine and cisplatin with or without veliparib
in patients with pancreas adenocarcinoma and a germline BRCA/
PALB2 mutation. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1378–88.
35. Cunningham D, Chau I, Stocken DD, etal. Phase III randomized
comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine
in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2009;27:5513–8.
36. Fine RL, Moorer G, Sherman W, et al. Phase II trial of GTX
chemotherapy in metastatic pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2009;27(15_suppl):4623.
37. Fjällskog ML, Lejonklou MH, Oberg KE, etal. Expression of molecular targets for tyrosine kinase receptor antagonists in malignant
endocrine pancreatic tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:1469–73.
38. Moore MJ, Goldstein D, Hamm J, etal. Erlotinib plus gemcitabine
compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase III trial of the National Cancer Institute of
Canada clinical trials group. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1960–6.
39. Wang-Gillam A, Li CP, Bodoky G, etal. Nanoliposomal irinotecan
with uorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer
after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global,
randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial [published correction appears
in lancet. 2016;387:536]. Lancet. 2016;387:545–57.
40. Gebbia V, Maiello E, Giuliani F, et al. Irinotecan plus bolus/
infusional 5-uorouracil and leucovorin in patients with pretreated advanced pancreatic carcinoma: a multicenter experience
of the Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale. Am J Clin Oncol.
2010;33:461–4.
41. Zaniboni A, Aitini E, Barni S, etal. FOLFIRI as second-line chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer: a GISCAD multicenter
phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69:1641–5.
42. Pelzer U, Schwaner I, Stieler J, etal. Best supportive care (BSC)
versus oxaliplatin, folinic acid and 5-uorouracil (OFF) plus BSC
in patients for second-line advanced pancreatic cancer: a phase
III-study from the German CONKO-study group. Eur J Cancer.
2011;47:1676–81.
43. Xiong HQ, Varadhachary GR, Blais JC, etal. Phase 2 trial of oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (XELOX) as second-line therapy for patients
with advanced pancreatic cancer. Cancer. 2008;113:2046–52.
44. Assaf E, Verlinde-Carvalho M, Delbaldo C, etal. 5-uorouracil/leucovorin combined with irinotecan and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX)
as second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic
adenocarcinoma. Oncology. 2011;80:301–6.
45. Da Rocha LA, Abrahão CM, Brandão RM, et al. Role of gemcitabine as second-line therapy after progression on FOLFIRINOX
in advanced pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis. J
Gastrointest Oncol. 2015;6:511–5.
46. Viaud J, Brac C, Artru P, etal. Gemcitabine as second-line chemotherapy after folrinox failure in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a retrospective study. Dig Liver Dis. 2017;49:692–6.
47. Gilabert M, Chanez B, Rho YS, etal. Evaluation of gemcitabine
efcacy after the FOLFIRINOX regimen in patients with advanced
pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e6544.
48. Sarabi M, Mais L, Oussaid N, etal. Use of gemcitabine as a secondline treatment following chemotherapy with folrinox for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2017;13:4917–24.
49. Portal A, Pernot S, Tougeron D, etal. Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma after Folrinox
failure: an AGEO prospective multicentre cohort. Br J Cancer.
2015;113:989–95.
50. Mita N, Iwashita T, Uemura S, et al. Second-line gemcitabine
plus nab-paclitaxel for patients with Unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer after rst-line FOLFIRINOX failure. J Clin Med.
2019;8:761.
51. Fisher AE, Hochegger H, Takeda S, et al. Poly(ADP-ribose)
polymerase 1 accelerates single-strand break repair in concert with poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase. Mol Cell Biol.
2007;27:5597–605.
52. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the DNA repair
defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature.
2005;434:917–21.
53. Golan T, Hammel P, Reni M, etal. Maintenance olaparib for germline BRCA-mutated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med.
2019;381:317–27.
54. Hu ZI, Shia J, Stadler ZK, etal. Evaluating mismatch repair deciency in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: challenges and recommendations. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24:1326–36.
55. Le DT, Durham JN, Smith KN, etal. Mismatch repair deciency
predicts response of solid tumors to PD-1 blockade. Science.
2017;357:409–13.
56. Marabelle A, Le DT, Ascierto PA, et al. Efcacy of pembrolizumab in patients with noncolorectal high microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-decient cancer: results from the phase II
KEYNOTE-158 study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:1–10.
57. Solomon JP, Linkov I, Rosado A, et al. NTRK fusion detection
across multiple assays and 33,997 cases: diagnostic implications
and pitfalls. Mod Pathol. 2020;33:38–46.
58. O'Reilly EM, Hechtman JF.Tumour response to TRK inhibition
in a patient with pancreatic adenocarcinoma harbouring an NTRK
gene fusion. Ann Oncol. 2019;30:viii36–40.
59. Doebele RC, Drilon A, Paz-Ares L, etal. Entrectinib in patients
with advanced or metastatic NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours:
integrated analysis of three phase 1-2 trials [published correction
appears in lancet Oncol. 2020;21:e70] [published correction appears
in lancet Oncol. 2020;21:e341] [published correction appears in
lancet Oncol. 2020;21:e372]. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:271–82.

Endoscopic Biliary Drainage
andAssociated Procedures Required
forPatients withMalignant Biliary
Strictures
HiroyukiIsayama, ToshioFujisawa, ShigetoIshii,
KoTomishima, MuneoIkemura, HirotoOta,
DaishiKabemura, MakoUshio, ShoTakahashi,
YusukeTakasaki, AkinoriSuzuki, KoichiIto,
KazushigeOchiai, andHiroakiSaito
24
Abstract
Endoscopic biliary drainage of a malignant biliary
obstruction (MBO) is a common procedure, but a recognized standard of evaluation is lacking. To this end, the
Tokyo criteria have been newly proposed and include certain denitions. Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) is
dened as stent occlusion and migration, and the time to
RBO is employed rather than the duration of stent patency.
For patients with distal MBO, the preoperative management has changed to incorporate new developments in
neoadjuvant chemotherapies for pancreatic cancer. Selfexpandable metallic stents (SEMSs) serve as the current
standard. Palliative management requires long-term stent
patency, and SEMS use is thus indicated. A covered
SEMS serves as the standard for palliative cases with distal MBO because such stents afford a time to RBO that is
similar or superior to those of other stents, with a similar
rate of adverse events. Furthermore, SEMSs are removable. However, the optimal covered SEMS is not yet
available, and covered large-bore SEMSs with antimigration and anti-reux properties remain under evaluation. There is currently no standard management for hilar
MBO (in either the preoperative or palliative context).
Recently, an inside stent placed above the papilla was
reported to afford better results than those of conventional
stents, but strong evidence is lacking. Endoscopic
ultrasound- guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) serves as a
salvage technique when routine endoscopic retrograde
H. Isayama (*) · T. Fujisawa · S. Ishii · K. Tomishima
M. Ikemura · H. Ota · D. Kabemura · M. Ushio · S. Takahashi
Y. Takasaki · A. Suzuki · K. Ito · K. Ochiai · H. Saito
Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine,
Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
e-mail: h-isayama@juntendo.ac.jp
cholangiopancreatography fails or is difcult. Recent
clinical practice guidelines for EUS-BD are becoming
accepted gradually. However, dedicated devices and
strong evidence of efcacy and safety are required.
24.1 Introduction
Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) of a malignant biliary
obstruction (MBO) is a common procedure. However, the
surgical strategy is affected by patient anatomy, disease characteristics, and overall health status. Various types of stents
are available. Here, we review the various strategies and
stents used for EBD of MBO in an effort to increase the
effectiveness, efciency, and safety of our procedures.
24.2 The Tokyo Criteria: AStandard
Reporting System
Evaluation of the various available biliary stents is crucial.
No standard criteria have been dened until recently. The
rst authors (H.I) proposed the use of the Tokyo criteria for
evaluating biliary stents in terms of both efcacy and safety
(Table24.1) [1]. Although many different evaluations have
been published, a meta-analysis is difcult given the large
variations in the stents examined and the study methods. The
Tokyo criteria propose the use of the phrase “recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO)” to dene stent occlusion and migration, replacing terms such as “stent occlusion” and “stent
dysfunction”. Complications are classied as RBO or other
(pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and cholangitis). We propose
using the time to RBO (TRBO) when evaluating stent
patency. Technical and clinical successes and other items are
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022
M. Makuuchi et al. (eds.), The IASGO Textbook of Multi-Disciplinary Management of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Diseases,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0063-1_24
201

202
H. Isayama et al.
Table 24.1 Factors affect the endoscopic biliary drainage
Causative disease
Papillary cancer (distal stricture)
Pancreatic cancer (distal stricture)
Cholangiocarcinoma (distal and hilar stricture)
Gallbladder cancer (distal and hilar stricture)
Metastatic lymph node (distal and hilar stricture)
Direct invasion of another malignant tumor (distal and hilar
stricture)
Hepatocellular carcinoma (hilar stricture)
Metastatic liver cancer (hilar stricture)
Tumor status
Resectable
Borderline resectable (only pancreatic cancer)
Palliation
Stricture location
Distal
Hilar (bismuth type 1–4)
Anatomy affected endoscopic procedure
Normal
Surgically altered (B-1, B-2, Leu-en-Y)
Duodenal invasion
Patients’ condition
Performance status (1–4)
High age
Frail
Table 24.2 Kinds of self-expandable metallic stent
Structure
Braided type
Cross wire design
Hook wire design
Zigzag & Spiral-Zigzag wire design
Laser cut type
Zigzag wire design
Covering membrane
Covered type (partially-, fully-covered)
Uncovered type
Anchoring system
Flare & Square are
Flare and bank
Flap
Other function
Drug eluting
Anti-reux
also dened in the Tokyo criteria. We hope that many future
reports on biliary stents will employ the Tokyo criteria, as
this would greatly aid meta-analyses.
24.3 Biliary Drainage inPatients
withMalignant Biliary Strictures
Many factors affect selection of the procedure and stent in
patients requiring EBD (Table 24.2). It is essential to consider the tumor type, patient’s condition, stricture location,
and surgical skills available. Distal strictures are most com-
monly caused by pancreatic cancer but also by distal cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder and papillary cancers, and
metastatic lymph nodes. Hilar strictures are caused by various malignant tumors including hilar cholangiocarcinoma,
gallbladder cancer, metastatic lymph nodes, and liver metastases. The resectability status must be considered when
developing a drainage strategy. Resectable cancers, borderline resectable cancers (requiring neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy [NAC]), and unresectable cancers
require different drainage strategies and stents.
Individual patient anatomies must also be considered. It
is difcult to attain the papilla if a patient presents with a
surgically altered anatomy and/or duodenal tumor obstruction. Device-assisted enteroscopy is required if the anatomy is surgically altered, and percutaneous trans-hepatic
biliary drainage (PTBD) is indicated for duodenal tumor
obstruction. If the papilla can be accessed via the duodenal
obstruction, double stenting is required (for both the duodenal and biliary strictures). Recently, endosonography/
endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage
(EUS-BD) has become possible [2]. Finally, the performance status of the patient is used to guide the selection of
one of several possible anti-cancer treatments; the performance status also affects biliary drainage, as do older age
and frailty status.
24.4 The Various Stents Available
The stent is selected by reference to the stricture location,
stage of the causative disease, patients’ condition, etc.
Table 24.3 lists the various stents available. Basically, two
stent types are used for EBD: plastic stents (PSs) and selfexpandable metallic stents (SEMSs). Both straight and
double- pigtail PSs are commonly employed. SEMSs may be
either braided or laser-cut. Braiding varies by the wire pattern, which may be a cross, hook, combined cross and hook,
zigzag, or spiral zigzag (Fig.24.1). Laser-cut stents feature
zigzag wires. The differences described above affect the
mechanical properties of SEMSs, particularly their ability to
withstand radial force (RF) and axial force [3]. Some SEMSs
feature a covering membrane to prevent tumor ingrowth via
the stent mesh and to facilitate stent removal [4].
The Achilles’ heel of a covered SEMS is stent migration.
Tumor and hyperplastic tissues invade uncovered SEMSs via
the mesh, rendering the stents difcult to remove. However,
the membrane prevents tumor and tissue ingrowth; therefore,
covered SEMSs do not become occluded by ingrowing tissue and may be easily removed. Some covered SEMSs feature anti-migration systems [5, 6]. However, the optimal
covered SEMS is not yet available.

ac
bd
24 Endoscopic Biliary Drainage andAssociated Procedures Required forPatients withMalignant Biliary Strictures
203
Table 24.3 Evaluating items of biliary metallic stents (Modied cita-
tion from Tokyo Criteria [1]
Technical and
functional success
rates
Recurrent biliary
obstruction (RBO)
Causes of RBO
✓ Rate of each
cause
✓ Median time
from the placement
✓ Early (within
30days) or late
(31days or later)
Complications other
than RBO
✓ Rate of each cause
✓ Median time from
the placement
✓ Early (within
30days) or late
(31days or later)
✓ Severity
(Table24.2)
Survival time
The incidence of RBO during the observed
period. (required the description of
observational time)
Median time to RBO (TRBO) estimated
using the Kaplan-Meier method
Non-obstruction rates at the time of 3, 6 and
12months estimated using the KaplanMeier method
Comparison using the log-rank test
Occlusion
✓ Tumor ingrowth/mucosal hyperplasia
✓ Tumor overgrowth
✓ Sludge with/without stone
✓ Food impaction
✓ Hemobilia
✓ Kinking of bile duct
✓ Others
Symptomatic migration (required any
intervention)
✓ Proximal
✓ Distal
✓ Pancreatitis
✓ Cholecystitis
✓ Non-occlusion cholangitis
✓ Others (bleeding, ulceration, penetration,
perforation, etc.)
✓ Complications associated with stent
placement procedure (peroration,
bleeding with scope, desaturation of
oxygen, aspiration pneumonia, etc.)
24.5 Preoperative Management
ofaDistal Stricture
Previously, the basic management of a preoperative distal
MBO featured the use of PSs [7, 8], which can be easily
placed and removed/exchanged. However, the TRBO of a PS
is shorter than that of a SEMS, and thus PS placement should
be performed soon after surgery. A SEMS may be indicated
by pathological evaluation of the resected specimen. However,
NAC has recently become indicated for patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancers [9]. The duration of stent placement prior to surgery is thus prolonged, and
the stenting strategy must be reconsidered if the patient
becomes unt for surgery. Initially, a SEMS should be chosen
for patients with pancreatic cancers that are resectable or borderline resectable [10, 11]. Both covered and uncovered
SEMSs have been used, but very few comparative studies
have been published. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of
covered and uncovered SEMSs placed in patients receiving
NAC revealed no signicant difference in the cumulative
stent patency [12]. However, the complication proles of the
two groups differed. Stent migration and cholecystitis were
the principal causes of complications in the covered SEMS
group versus tumor ingrowth in the uncovered SEMS group.
Both types of SEMSs were used, but for patients receiving
NAC, over 40% of the tumors were never resected [12]. In
such cases, covered SEMSs are optimal.
Critically, stent selection must be based on patient and
disease status. However, NAC is not a standard therapy for
patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma; PSs remain the
standard.
Fig. 24.1 Basic structures of self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS). (a) Cross wire design; (b) Hook wire design; (c) Zigzag wire design; (d)
Zigzag wire design (Laser-cut type SEMS)

204
H. Isayama et al.
24.6 Palliative Management ofDistal
Strictures
A few RCTs and meta-analyses have compared PSs with
SEMSs for patients with unresectable distal MBOs [13–16].
The SEMSs were clearly superior, but the choice of covered
versus uncovered SEMS remains controversial. Although
covered SEMSs prevent tumor ingrowth via the stent mesh
[4] and thus are easily removable, this renders them prone to
migration. RCTs that found no superiority of covered SEMSs
over uncovered SEMSs reported a high incidence of migration. However, RCTs showed signicantly longer cumulative
TRBOs when using covered SEMSs with anti-migration systems compared with SEMSs lacking the anti-migration modication [6, 17].
24.7 Eorts toProlong theTRBOs
ofCovered SEMSs
Despite the introduction of anti-migration systems, the
TRBOs of covered SEMSs remain inadequate. Recently,
effective chemotherapies have been used to manage unresectable pancreatobiliary malignancies; the incidence of
stent migration is thus expected to increase [18, 19].
Prevention of migration is crucial to maintain patient quality
of life and to allow patients to maintain their chemotherapy
schedules. We previously showed that a weak RF and chemotherapy were the principal predictors of stent migration
[19, 20]. Anti-migration systems effectively prolonged the
TRBO. Figure 24.2 shows the various types of covered
SEMSs with anti-migration systems, which include aps,
external uncovered regions, ares, and methods of enhancing the RF. No system is yet ideal, and the safety of each
system requires further evaluation.
Recently, a larger-diameter fully covered SEMS
(FCSEMS) developed by the rst author (H.I) has become
commercially available in Japan. Mukai etal. evaluated the
large-bore covered SEMS (12mm in diameter); in a pilot
study, the TRBO was prolonged (compared with that of a
control stent); sludge accumulation in and food impaction of
the new stent were slower [21]. The complications associated with stent placement were acceptable. Recently, a
12-mm-diameter FCSEMS with a large are (16mm) has
become commercially available in Japan, and is considered
promising.
FCSEMSs with anti-reux functions (ARSEMSs) are
also promising. Bacterial infection in the FCSEMS cavity
attributable to reuxed duodenal contents creates biliary
sludge and stones. Food impaction of the stent body and orice is a prime cause of stent occlusion. In a pilot study, an
ARSEMS effectively prevented food impaction soon after
placement [22]. RCTs comparing a conventional FCSEMS
a
b
c
d
Fig. 24.2 Anti-migration systems of self-expandable metallic stent.
(a) Flaps; (b) Flap; (c) Flare design; (d) Square are design
with an ARSEMS yielded controversial results. Lee and
Moon et al. reported that the ARSEMS exhibited a longer
cumulative TRBO than that of a conventional FCSEMS, but
Hamada etal. found no superiority of the ARSEMS [23, 24].
Efforts to reduce the incidence of RBO and prolong the
TRBO are continuing.
24.8 Hilar Strictures (Resectable Cases)
Prior to hepatectomy, biliary drainage and portal vein
embolization are standard to prevent liver dysfunction
after surgery. Pre-surgical preparation includes biliary
drainage of the future remnant lobe and portal vein embolization of the future resected lobe. Hypertrophy of the
future remnant lobe and atrophy of the future resected lobe
may reduce liver dysfunction after surgery. Previously,

ab
24 Endoscopic Biliary Drainage andAssociated Procedures Required forPatients withMalignant Biliary Strictures
Fig. 24.3 Side-by-side stenting for hilar cholangiocarcinoma with three slim-covered self-expandable metallic stents (6mm in a diameter). (a)
X-ray image of side-by-side stenting. (b) Endoscopic image of side-by-side stenting
205
PTBD was employed to thoroughly drain the target biliary
branch; however, the incidence of recurrent tract cancer
was relatively high [25, 26]. The EBD procedure has gradually improved and is currently the standard treatment.
However, stent selection during preoperative EBD remains
controversial. Most Japanese institutions employ endonasobiliary drainage to reduce cholangitis before surgery, but
this is uncomfortable for patients [27]. In addition, many
high-volume cholangiocarcinoma surgery centers in Japan
require patients to drink bile juice. Conventional PSs are
standard for preoperative cases, but an inside stent placed
above the papilla exhibited a longer cumulative TRBO
[28]. This type of stent is promising, but more evidence is
required.
Two endoscopic stenting methods are used when placing
SEMSs in patients with unresectable hilar biliary malignancies: the stent-in-stent (SIS) and side-by-side (SBS) methods. During the SIS method, it is sometimes difcult to place
the second stent through the mesh. Certain SEMSs with
loose or moveable portions have been developed to facilitate
through-the-mesh placement. SBS is easier than SIS, and in
some clinical trials, the initial placement success rate was
similar to or slightly better than that of the SIS method. A
problem with SBS placement is that a second/third SEMS
delivery system passes beside the prior SEMS. When
uncovered SEMSs are used, the techniques are different, but
the clinical results have been similar [30].
Recent advances include slim-covered SEMSs and inside
stents. Slim-covered SEMSs of thin diameter (6 mm) are
24.9 Hilar Stricture: Palliative Cases
placed in patients with hilar MBOs using the SBS method.
Segmental cholangitis caused by obstruction of the biliary
branch after covered SEMS placement has been of concern.
Drainage of 50% of the liver volume is required to preserve
liver function and prevent ineffective stenting [29]. However,
stent selection and placement are not standardized.
Uncovered SEMSs exhibited longer TRBOs than those of
PSs in some RCTs, but re-interventions were required when
the uncovered SEMS became occluded. The Japanese clinical practice guidelines for bile duct cancer recommend the
use of both PSs and metallic stents because many endoscopists favor PSs.
However, the incidence thereof is not high [31]. Slimcovered SEMSs can be easily removed and exchanged.
Inside stents are sutured above the papilla and have been
reported to be easily removable (Fig.24.3). The inside stent
also exhibits a longer cumulative TRBO than that of conventional PSs [32] (Fig. 24.4). However, many endoscopists
remain concerned about removability, and large-scale studies are warranted. No ideal stent for management of hilar
MBO is yet available, thus requiring continued efforts.

206
a b
H. Isayama et al.
Fig. 24.4 Inside stent placement for the malignant hilar stricture case.
(a) X-ray image of inside stent placement above the papilla. (b) Inside
stents. Suture for removal was attached to the distal site. Right side stent
24.10 Radiofrequency Ablation
oftheBileDuct
Radiofrequency ablation of the bile duct was developed to
improve stent TRBO [33]. Uncovered SEMSs exhibit tumor
ingrowth via the stent mesh, and tumor ablation prior to
SEMS placement delayed such ingrowth. Radiofrequency
ablation prior to PS placement effectively prolonged the
TRBO [34]. More studies and more evidence are needed.
24.11 Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage
EUS-BD was developed as a salvage technique after difculty or failure of conventional endoscopic drainage. Initially,
EUS-BD was indicated only for patients with unresectable
with deep angle indicates for the left and right-posterior branch. Left
side stent indicates for right-anterior branch
MBOs, but currently, the indications are increasing. There
are two principal types of EUS-BD: hepaticogastrostomy
(EUS-HGS) and choledochogastrostomy (EUS-CDS) [2]. In
EUS-HGS, a stula is created between the liver (the intrahepatic bile duct) and the stomach. The EUS-CDS stula runs
from the common hepatic duct/common bile duct to the duodenum. This procedure is easier than EUS-HGS because the
liver parenchyma is not penetrated. Recent Japanese clinical
practice guidelines to ensure that EUS-BD is safe were proposed [35]. The procedure should be preferred to PTBD in
various situations; however, very few reports on preoperative
EUS-BD have appeared. Given recent developments in dedicated devices, two clinical trials have suggested that EUS-BD
might serve as a primary drainage method [36, 37], being
both effective and promising. The technique and devices
must be developed further and standardized by referencing
strong clinical and safety evidence.

24 Endoscopic Biliary Drainage andAssociated Procedures Required forPatients withMalignant Biliary Strictures
207
24.12 Conclusions
EBD remains the standard treatment for patients with biliary
obstruction/stricture. As many procedures and stents are
available, it is essential to choose them carefully. No standard procedure or stent has yet emerged. EUS-BD is a relatively new biliary drainage modality that should become the
drainage method of choice.
The English in this document has been checked by at least
two professional editors, both native speakers of English. For
a certicate, please see: http://www.textcheck.com/certi-
cate/QZ6lR6
References
1. Isayama H, Hamada T, Yasuda I, Itoi T, Ryozawa S, Nakai Y,
Kogure H, Koike K.TOKYO criteria 2014 for transpapillary biliary stenting. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(2):259–64.
2. Kawakubo K, Isayama H, Kato H, Itoi T, Kawakami H, Hanada
K, Ishiwatari H, Yasuda I, Kawamoto H, Itokawa F, Kuwatani M,
Iiboshi T, Hayashi T, Doi S, Nakai Y.Multicenter retrospective
study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2014;21(5):328–34.
3. Isayama H, Nakai Y, Toyokawa Y, Togawa O, Gon C, Ito Y,
Yashima Y, Yagioka H, Kogure H, Sasaki T, Arizumi T, Matsubara
S, Yamamoto N, Sasahira N, Hirano K, Tsujino T, Toda N, Tada
M, Kawabe T, Omata M.Measurement of radial and axial forces
of biliary self-expandable metallic stents. Gastrointest Endosc.
2009;70(1):37–44.
4. Isayama H, Komatsu Y, Tsujino T, Sasahira N, Hirano K, Toda N,
Nakai Y, Yamamoto N, Tada M, Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Kawabe T,
Omata M.A prospective randomized study of “covered” vs “uncovered” diamond stents for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gut. 2004;53:729–34.
5. Isayama H, Kawakubo K, Nakai Y, Inoue K, Gon C, Matsubara
S, Kogure H, Ito Y, Tsujino T, Mizuno S, Hamada T, Uchino R,
Miyabayashi K, Yamamoto K, Sasaki T, Yamamoto N, Hirano K,
Sasahira N, Tada M, Koike K. A novel, fully covered laser-cut
nitinol stent with antimigration properties for nonresectable distal
malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter feasibility study. Gut
Liver. 2013;7(6):725–30.
6. Park DH, Lee SS, Lee TH, Ryu CH, Kim HJ, Seo DW, Park SH,
Lee SK, Kim MH, Kim SJ. Anchoring ap versus ared end,
fully covered self-expandable metal stents to prevent migration
in patients with benign biliary strictures: a multicenter, prospective, comparative pilot study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc.
2011;73(1):64–70.
7. Sasahira N, Hamada T, Togawa O, Yamamoto R, Iwai T, Tamada
K, Kawaguchi Y, Shimura K, Koike T, Yoshida Y, Sugimori K,
Ryozawa S, Kakimoto T, Nishikawa K, Kitamura K, Imamura
T, Mizuide M, Toda N, Maetani I, Sakai Y, Itoi T, Nagahama M,
Nakai Y, Isayama H.Multicenter study of endoscopic preoperative
biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction. World J
Gastroenterol. 2016;22(14):3793–802.
8. Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, Onodera M, Haba S, Eto K, Ehira
N, Yamato H, Kudo T, Tanaka E, Hirano S, Kondo S, Asaka
M.Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is the most suitable preoperative biliary drainage method in the management of patients with
hilar cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2011;46(2):242–8.
9. Motoi F, Kosuge T, Ueno H, Yamaue H, Satoi S, Sho M, Honda
G, Matsumoto I, Wada K, Furuse J, Matsuyama Y, Unno M, Study
Group of Preoperative Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer (Prep) and
Japanese Study Group of Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer
(JSAP). Randomized phase II/III trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine and S-1 versus upfront surgery for resectable pancreatic cancer (Prep-02/JSAP05). Jpn J Clin Oncol.
2019;49(2):190–4.
10. Togawa O, Isayama H, Kawakami H, Nakai Y, Mohri D, Hamada T,
Kogure H, Kawakubo K, Sakamoto N, Koike K, Kita H.Preoperative
biliary drainage using a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent
for pancreatic head cancer: a prospective feasibility study. Saudi J
Gastroenterol. 2018;24(3):151–6.
11. Saito K, Nakai Y, Isayama H, Yamamoto R, Kawakubo K, Kodama
Y, Katanuma A, Kanno A, Itonaga M, Koike K.A prospective multicenter study of partially covered metal stents in patients receiving
neoadjuvant chemotherapy for resectable and borderline resectable
pancreatic cancer: BTS-NAC study. Gut Liver. 2021;15(1):135–41.
https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl19302.
12. Seo DW, Sherman S, Dua KS, Slivka A, Roy A, Costamagna G,
Deviere J, Peetermans J, Rousseau M, Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kozarek
R, Biliary SEMS During Neoadjuvant Therapy Study Group.
Covered and uncovered biliary metal stents provide similar relief
of biliary obstruction during neoadjuvant therapy in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(4):602–12.
13. Almadi MA, Barkun A, Martel M.Plastic vs. self-expandable metal
stents for palliation in malignant biliary obstruction: a series of
meta-analyses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(2):260–73.
14. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Wang HP, Rerknimitr R, Khor C, Yasuda I,
Kogure H, Moon JH, Lau J, Lakhtakia S, Ratanachu-Ek T, Seo DW,
Lee DK, Makmun D, Dy F, Liao WC, Draganov PV, Almadi M,
Irisawa A, Katanuma A, Kitano M, Ryozawa S, Fujisawa T, Wallace
MB, Itoi T, Devereaux B. International consensus statements for
endoscopic management of distal biliary stricture. J Gastroenterol
Hepatol. 2020;35(6):967–79.
15. Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, Tytgat GN, Huibregtse
K. Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Lancet.
1992;340(8834–8835):1488–92.
16. Isayama H, Yasuda I, Ryozawa S, Maguchi H, Igarashi Y,
Matsuyama Y, Katanuma A, Hasebe O, Irisawa A, Itoi T, Mukai H,
Arisaka Y, Okushima K, Uno K, Kida M, Tamada K.Results of a
Japanese multicenter, randomized trial of endoscopic stenting for
non-resectable pancreatic head cancer (JM-test): covered Wallstent
versus DoubleLayer stent. Dig Endosc. 2011;23(4):310–5.
17. Krokidis M, Fanelli F, Orgera G, Bezzi M, Passariello R, Hatzidakis
A. Percutaneous treatment of malignant jaundice due to extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: covered Viabil stent versus uncovered
Wallstents. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33(1):97–106.
18. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Mukai T, Itoi T, Maetani I, Kawakami H,
Yasuda I, Maguchi H, Ryozawa S, Hanada K, Hasebe O, Ito K,
Kawamoto H, Mochizuki H, Igarashi Y, Irisawa A, Sasaki T, Togawa
O, Hara T, Kamada H, Toda N, Hamada T, Kogure H.Impact of
anticancer treatment on recurrent obstruction in covered metallic stents for malignant biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol.
2013;48(11):1293–9.
19. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kogure H, Hamada T, Togawa O, Ito
Y, Matsubara S, Arizumi T, Yagioka H, Mizuno S, Sasaki T,
Yamamoto N, Hirano K, Tada M, Koike K.Risk factors for covered metallic stent migration in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2014;29(9):1744–9.
20. Isayama H, Nakai Y, Hamada T, Matsubara S, Kogure H, Koike
K.Understanding the mechanical forces of self-expandable metal
stents in the biliary ducts. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016;18(12):64.

208
H. Isayama et al.
21. Mukai T, Yasuda I, Isayama H, Iwashita T, Itoi T, Kawakami H,
Kogure H, Nakai Y.Pilot study of a novel, large-bore, fully covered
self-expandable metallic stent for unresectable distal biliary malignancies. Dig Endosc. 2016;28(6):671–9.
22. Hamada T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Kogure H, Togawa O, Kawakubo
K, Yamamoto N, Ito Y, Sasaki T, Tsujino T, Sasahira N, Hirano K,
Tada M, Koike K.Novel antireux covered metal stent for recurrent occlusion of biliary metal stents: a pilot study. Dig Endosc.
2014;26(2):264–9.
23. Lee YN, Moon JH, Choi HJ, Choi MH, Lee TH, Cha SW, Cho YD,
Choi SY, Lee HK, Park SH.Effectiveness of a newly designed antireux valve metal stent to reduce duodenobiliary reux in patients
with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction: a randomized, controlled pilot study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc.
2016;83(2):404–12.
24. Hamada T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Iwashita T, Ito Y, Mukai T, Yagioka
H, Saito T, Togawa O, Ryozawa S, Hirano K, Mizuno S, Yamamoto
N, Kogure H, Yasuda I, Koike K.Antireux covered metal stent
for nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction: Multicenter
randomized controlled trial. Dig Endosc. 2019;31(5):566–74.
25. Takahashi Y, Nagino M, Nishio H, Ebata T, Igami T, Nimura
Y. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage catheter tract recurrence in cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Surg. 2010;97(12):1860–6.
26. Kawakami H, Kondo S, Kuwatani M, Yamato H, Ehira N, Kudo
T, Eto K, Haba S, Matsumoto J, Kato K, Tsuchikawa T, Tanaka E,
Hirano S, Asaka M.Preoperative biliary drainage for hilar cholangiocarcinoma: which stent should be selected? J Hepatobiliary
Pancreat Sci. 2011;18(5):630–5.
27. Nakai Y, Yamamoto R, Matsuyama M, Sakai Y, Takayama Y, Ushio
J, Ito Y, Kitamura K, Ryozawa S, Imamura T, Tsuchida K, Hayama
J, Itoi T, Kawaguchi Y, Yoshida Y, Sugimori K, Shimura K, Mizuide
M, Iwai T, Nishikawa K, Yagioka H, Nagahama M, Toda N, Saito
T, Yasuda I, Hirano K, Togawa O, Nakamura K, Maetani I, Sasahira
N, Isayama H.Multicenter study of endoscopic preoperative biliary
drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: E-POD hilar study.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(5):1146–53.
28. Kobayashi N, Watanabe S, Hosono K, Kubota K, Nakajima A,
Kaneko T, Sugimori K, Tokuhisa M, Goto A, Mori R, Taniguchi
K, Matsuyama R, Endo I, Maeda S, Ichikawa Y.Endoscopic inside
stent placement is suitable as a bridging treatment for preoperative
biliary tract cancer. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015;15:8.
29. Vienne A, Hobeika E, Gouya H, Lapidus N, Fritsch J, Choury AD,
Chryssostalis A, Gaudric M, Pelletier G, Buffet C, Chaussade S,
Prat F. Prediction of drainage effectiveness during endoscopic
stenting of malignant hilar strictures: the role of liver volume
assessment. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):728–35.
30. Lee TH, Moon JH, Choi JH, Lee SH, Lee YN, Paik WH, Jang DK,
Cho BW, Yang JK, Hwangbo Y, Park SH.Prospective comparison
of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent versus stent-by-stent deployment for inoperable advanced malignant hilar biliary stricture.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;90(2):222–30.
31. Kitamura K, Yamamiya A, Ishii Y, Mitsui Y, Nomoto T, Yoshida
H. Side-by-side partially covered self-expandable metal stent
placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. Endosc Int Open.
2017;5(12):E1211–7.
32. Kaneko T, Sugimori K, Shimizu Y, Miwa H, Kameta E, Koh R,
Numata K, Tanaka K, Maeda S. Efcacy of plastic stent placement inside bile ducts for the treatment of unresectable malignant hilar obstruction (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2014;21(5):349–55.
33. Steel AW, Postgate AJ, Khorsandi S, Nicholls J, Jiao L, Vlavianos
P, Habib N, Westaby D. Endoscopically applied radiofrequency
ablation appears to be safe in the treatment of malignant biliary
obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(1):149–53.
34. So AA, Khan MA, Das A, Sachdev M, Khuder S, Nawras A, Lee
W. Radiofrequency ablation combined with biliary stent placement versus stent placement alone for malignant biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc.
2018;87(4):944–51.
35. Isayama H, Nakai Y, Itoi T, Yasuda I, Kawakami H, Ryozawa S,
Kitano M, Irisawa A, Katanuma A, Hara K, Iwashita T, Fujita
N, Yamao K, Yoshida M, Inui K.Clinical practice guidelines for
safe performance of endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonographyguided biliary drainage: 2018. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci.
2019;26(7):249–69.
36. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kawakami H, Ishiwatari H, Kitano M, Ito Y,
Yasuda I, Kato H, Matsubara S, Irisawa A, Itoi T.Prospective multicenter study of primary EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy
using a covered metal stent. Endosc Ultrasound. 2019;8(2):111–7.
37. Paik WH, Lee TH, Park DH, Choi JH, Kim SO, Jang S, Kim DU,
Shim JH, Song TJ, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH. EUSguided biliary drainage versus ERCP for the primary palliation of
malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter randomized clinical
trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(7):987–97.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
